Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Trucks, oil tankers and tanks are burning on the highway east to Fallujah. A stream of boys and men goes to and from a lorry that?s not burnt, stripping it bare. We turn on to the back roads through Abu Ghraib, past the vehicles full of people and a few possessions heading the other way, past the improvised refreshment posts along the way where boys throw food through the windows into the bus for us and for the people still inside Fallujah.The bus is following a car with the nephew of a local sheikh and a guide who has contacts with the mujahidin and has cleared this with them. I?m on the bus because a journalist I know turned up at my door at about 11 at night telling me things were desperate in Fallujah. He said aid vehicles and the media were being turned away. There was some medical aid that needed to go in and there was a better chance of it getting there with Westerners to get through the American checkpoints. The rest of the way was secured with the armed groups who control the roads we?d travel on. We?d take in the medical supplies, see what else we could do to help and then use the bus to bring out people who needed to leave.

When we arrive, we pile the stuff in the corridor of a clinic, a private doctor?s surgery treating people for free since air strikes destroyed the town?s main hospital. Another has been improvised in a garage. There?s no anaesthetic. The blood bags are in a drinks fridge and the doctors warm them up under the hot tap in a toilet.

Screaming women come in, praying, slapping their chests and faces. Maki, a consultant and acting director of the clinic, takes me to the bed where a child of about 10 is lying with a bullet wound to the head. A smaller child is being treated for a similar injury in the next bed. A US sniper hit them and their grandmother as they left their home to flee Fallujah.

The lights go out, the fan stops and in the sudden quiet someone holds up the flame of a cigarette lighter for the doctor to carry on operating by. The electricity to the town has been cut off for days and when the generator runs out of petrol, they just have to manage till it comes back on. The children are not going to live.

I am ushered into a room where an old woman has just had an abdominal bullet wound stitched , a white flag still clutched in her hand. She tells the same story: ?I was leaving my home to go to Baghdad when I was hit by a US sniper.? Some of the town is held by US marines, other parts by the local fighters. Their homes are in the US controlled area and they are adamant that the snipers were US marines.

Snipers are causing not just carnage but also the paralysis of the ambulance and evacuation services. The biggest hospital after the main one was bombed is in US territory and cut off from the clinic by snipers. The ambulance has been repaired four times after bullet damage. Bodies are lying in the streets because nobody can go to collect them without being shot.

We get into the back of the pick-up to go past the snipers to do what we can for sick and injured people. The men we pass wave us on when the driver explains where we?re going. The silence is ferocious in the no-man?s-land between the mujahidin territory and the marines? line beyond the next wall; no birds, no music, no indication that anyone is still living until a gate opens opposite and a woman comes out and points.

We edge along to the hole in the wall where we can see a car, spent mortar shells around it. Feet are visible, crossed, in the gutter. I think he?s dead already. The snipers are visible too, two of them on the corner of the building. As yet I think they can?t see us so we need to let them know we?re there.

?Hello,? I bellow at the top of my voice. ?Can you hear me? We are a medical team. We want to remove this wounded man. Is it OK for us to come out and get him? Can you give us a signal that it?s OK??

I think I hear a shout back. Not sure, I call again.

?Hello.?

?Yeah.?

?Can we come out and get him??

?Yeah.?

Slowly, our hands up, we go out. The black cloud that rises to greet us carries with it a hot, sour smell. Solidified, his legs are heavy. A Kalashnikov is attached by sticky blood to his hair and hand and we don?t want it with us, so I put my foot on it as I pick up his shoulders and his blood falls out through the hole in his back. We heave him into the pick-up and try to outrun the flies.

He?s barefoot, no more than 20, in imitation Nike trousers and a football shirt. The orderlies from the clinic pull the young fighter off the pick-up and take him straight up the ramp into the makeshift morgue.

We wash the blood off our hands and get in the ambulance. There are people trapped in the other hospital who need to go to Baghdad. Siren screaming, lights flashing, we huddle on the floor of the ambulance, passports and ID cards held out the windows. We pack it with people, one with his chest taped together and a drip, another on a stretcher, legs jerking violently so I have to hold them down as we wheel him out.

The next morning the doctors at the clinic look haggard. None has slept more than a couple of hours a night for a week. One has had only eight hours? sleep in the last seven days, missing the funerals of his brother and aunt because he was needed at the hospital. ?The dead we cannot help,? he says. ?I must worry about the injured.?

We go out again in the pick-up. There are some sick people close to the marines? line who need evacuating. Nobody dares come out of their house because the marines are on top of the buildings shooting at anything that moves. Saad fetches us a white flag and tells us not to worry, he?s checked and secured the road, no mujahidin will fire at us, that peace is upon us. Saad is 11, his face covered with a keffiyeh, but for his bright brown eyes, his AK47 almost as tall as he is.

We shout to the soldiers, holding up a flag with a red crescent sprayed on it. Two come over. We tell them we need to get some sick people from the houses. Thirteen women and children are still inside, in one room, without food and water for the last 24 hours.

?We?re going to be going through soon clearing the houses,? the senior soldier says.

?What does that mean, clearing the houses?? I ask.

?Going into every one searching for weapons.? He?s checking his watch, can?t tell me what will start when, of course, but there?s going to be air strikes in support. ?If you?re going to do this you gotta do it soon.?

In the street there?s a man, face down, in a white dishdasha, a small red stain on his back. As we roll him on to the stretcher, my colleague Dave?s hand goes through his chest, through the cavity left by the bullet that entered so neatly through his back and blew his heart out. There?s no weapon in his hand. When we arrive, his sons come out, crying, shouting. ?He was unarmed,? they scream. ?He just went out the gate and they shot him.? None of them has dared come out since. Nobody had dared come to get his body, horrified, terrified, forced to violate the traditions of treating the body immediately.

The people seem to pour out of the houses now in the hope we can escort them safely out of the line of fire, kids, women, men anxiously asking us whether they can all go, or only the women and children. A young marine tells us that men of fighting age can?t leave. What?s fighting age? Anything under 45. No lower limit.

A man wants to use his police car to carry some of the people, a couple of elderly ones who can?t walk far, the smallest children. They creep from their houses, huddle by the wall, follow us out, their hands up too, and walk up the street clutching babies, bags, each other.

The bus is going to leave, taking the injured people back to Baghdad, a man with burns, a woman who was shot in the jaw and shoulder by a sniper, several others.

The way back is tense, the bus almost getting stuck in a dip in the sand, people escaping in anything, even piled on the trailer of a tractor, lines of cars and pick ups and buses ferrying people to the dubious sanctuary of Baghdad, lines of men in vehicles queuing to get back into the city having got their families to safety, either to fight or to help evacuate more people. The driver takes a different road so that suddenly we?re not following the lead car and we?re on a road that?s controlled by a different armed group than the ones which know us.

A crowd of men waves guns to stop the bus. Somehow they apparently believe that there are American soldiers on the bus. Gunmen run on to the bus and see there are injured and old people, Iraqis, and then relax and wave us on.

We stop in Abu Ghraib and swap seats, foreigners in the front, Iraqis less visible, headscarves off so we look more Western. The American soldiers are so happy to see Westerners they don?t mind too much about the Iraqis with us, search the men and the bus, leave the women unsearched because there are no women soldiers to search us.

And then we?re in Baghdad, delivering them to the hospitals. The satellite news says the cease-fire is holding and George Bush insists his actions in Iraq are right.

--------------------To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

And then we?re in Baghdad, delivering them to the hospitals. The satellite news says the cease-fire is holding and George Bush insists his actions in Iraq are right.

Any article with a tag-line like that closing it doesn't fit my definition of "objective". If someone who is anti-War and anti-Bush writes any article, it will be for the purpose, as the closing paragraph of this article indicates, of being anti-war and anti-Bush. How much of this is true? Unknown. Would you believe it if it had talked about nothing but the brave US soldiers and their struggle against the enemy, then said that Bush was right? Of course not, not totally at least, and neither would I. People who write with an obvious slant aren't objective. Maybe this reporter, in his/her attempt to paint the verbal picture that they were aiming for, "missed" some things, or exaggerated other things. It would be like having an impressionist and a realist paint the same concept, it would be drastically different.

summation: I'm sure that things are pretty fucked in Iraq.

I actually missed any relevance between the topic and the anecdotes discussed in the story, what did you mean by inferring that this could/will cause more terrorism?

Quote:The satellite news says the cease-fire is holding and George Bush insists his actions in Iraq are right.

Any article with a tag-line like that closing it doesn't fit my definition of "objective". If someone who is anti-War and anti-Bush writes any article, it will be for the purpose, as the closing paragraph of this article indicates, of being anti-war and anti-Bush.

Perhaps you can explain how you feel this line (or the author) is anti-Bush? Do you disagree that Bush feels that what he is doing with Iraq is 'right'?

what did you mean by inferring that this could/will cause more terrorism?

When we arrive, his sons come out, crying, shouting. ?He was unarmed,? they scream. ?He just went out the gate and they shot him.? None of them has dared come out since. Nobody had dared come to get his body, horrified, terrified, forced to violate the traditions of treating the body immediately.

I would imagine that seeing your unarmed father gunned down in the street for no reason, and then having to watch him die (if he didn't die instantly) and being unable to help (for fear of being shot too) or treat his body in accordance with your religious practices, might just make some people violently angry at the people who did it.

--------------------The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Quote:germin8tionn8ion said:Any article with a tag-line like that closing it doesn't fit my definition of "objective".

[sarcasm] Really, what a revelation. Gee, and I thought that all eyewitnesses were objective. Who would'a thunk?[/sarcasm] Anyway, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the author is 'anti-War and anti-Bush' from those sentences? That seems to be an irrational reach.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a report from someone who was in Fallujah.

Quote:summation: I'm sure that things are pretty fucked in Iraq.

Quagmire is the proper term. The U.S. actions are also an excellent recruiting tool for more terrorists.

Quote:I actually missed any relevance between the topic and the anecdotes discussed in the story, what did you mean by inferring that this could/will cause more terrorism?

I was attempting to bring to light the myopia which seems to affect supporters of the current U.S. foreign policy. Thanks for playing along.

--------------------To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Perhaps you can explain how you feel this line (or the author) is anti-Bush?[/]iThe line was written to show how, in the authors opinion, the "story" that bush and co are presenting isn't true or accurate. do you not get that when you read it? Maybe I misread it... Do you disagree that Bush feels that what he is doing with Iraq is 'right'?

That isn't totally relevant to your post here, and to prevent this from going off-topic, I'll decline to answer here. PM me and ask this and I'll be happy to tell you my feelings.

I would imagine that seeing your unarmed father gunned down in the street for no reason, and then having to watch him die (if he didn't die instantly) and being unable to help (for fear of being shot too) or treat his body in accordance with your religious practices, might just make some people violently angry at the people who did it. Apparently these people can watch their own countrymen get gassed and not stand up to those that did it. I'd like to see some real evidence of that "attack", rather than this reporters obviously bias interpretation of it. Does this reporter speak, uh, geez, Farsi (or is that in Iran?)? how does she know exactly what is going on? Now, I don't know this to be the case at all, but let me just fantasize and show you what I mean. Lets say that a very pro-War, pro-Bush reporter was there. He'd see the lack of a weapon as an indication that someone else took the weapon already. Is this version true? we have no way of knowing. In a nation where the main news network doesn't see anything terribly wrong with an 11 year old boy being used to smuggle explosives to be used in a suicide bombing in a crowded area, it's hard to tel lexactly what is and what isn't the truth.

Are innocent people being killed in Iraq by US servicemen who are constnatly under attack from insurgents who aren't following 'the rules'? Certaintly. Is this indicative of a US Policy that isn't concerened with innocent casualties? certaintly not.

Summation - I don't see any PROOF that in this war-ridden, civil-strifed nation the man in your example was shot and killed, as he was unarmed, by US servicemen. This sort of reporting that portrays the 'facts' in a certain light leads to conjecture, which isn't what reporting should do. If they autopsy the man, find out it was US Servicemen that did it, and have photographs of the man standing unarmed as he was shot, I'd say it's a horrific thing. If it's some dead man and his family (via a translator who is of unknown'allegiance') being reported by a person who is against the war, well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't meet my standard of proof.

The line was written to show how, in the authors opinion, the "story" that bush and co are presenting isn't true or accurate. do you not get that when you read it? Maybe I misread it...

I don't see that (because there is no reference to any 'story' by Bush), which ties in to my other question, which I'd rather keep in this thread:

Do you disagree that Bush feels that what he is doing with Iraq is 'right'?

That isn't totally relevant to your post here, and to prevent this from going off-topic, I'll decline to answer here. PM me and ask this and I'll be happy to tell you my feelings.

I think it's entirely relevant and on-topic. To recap:

Quote:The satellite news says the cease-fire is holding and George Bush insists his actions in Iraq are right.

To which you replied:

If someone who is anti-War and anti-Bush writes any article, it will be for the purpose, as the closing paragraph of this article indicates, of being anti-war and anti-Bush.

So I am asking how you think this comment makes the author anti-Bush. If Bush does indeed insist that his actions in Iraq are 'right', then surely that would make the comment accurate no? I asked you if you disagree with that conclusion, because I can't see how else the article would be anti-Bush unless that comment was not accurate.

--------------------The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

I don't see that (because there is no reference to any 'story' by Bush), which ties in to my other question, which I'd rather keep in this thread:That sentance is obviously used to show the contrast between what this specific author thinks is happening, and what bush and his associates are telling the American people is happening.

Do you disagree that Bush feels that what he is doing with Iraq is 'right'?I think Bush believes what he is doing is right.

So I am asking how you think this comment makes the author anti-Bush.

S/he is using sarcasm and parody to display her feelings. By displaying one perception of the same reality for the entire story, then commenting on how someone else sees it totally differently, she is showing that what Bush thinks (in her opinion) isn't congruent with what she sees (with her subjective perception). Maybe "Anti-bush" wasn't the right phrase specifically, but she certaintly is showing how her perception is different than his.

If Bush does indeed insist that his actions in Iraq are 'right', then surely that would make the comment accurate no? I asked you if you disagree with that conclusion, because I can't see how else the article would be anti-Bush unless that comment was not accurate. This is why a seperate thread would be, possibly, a bit better of a choice. We've gone off of the "this is why we have terrorists" and back onto the "should we be in Iraq". I realize that they are closely related, but I'm sure that the "should we be in iraq" question is answered in everyones mind already.

Do you think that 3,406 words describing the horrific conditions of the war, then a single contrived line that is in stark contradiction to the previous 6 pages of text, is indicitive of an article that is solely for reporting objective fact? Did you, or any other readers out there, get a feeling that this article isn't PRO-War? Why? she doesn't say that specifically. Writing is like painting, each element is important. Do you feel that the article would have a different meaning had the last sentance not been there? If so, what meaning do you think it would have had?

[sarcasm] Really, what a revelation. Gee, and I thought that all eyewitnesses were objective. Who would'a thunk?[/sarcasm] Anyway, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the author is 'anti-War and anti-Bush' from those sentences? That seems to be an irrational reach.Ah, I see, you don't think that sarcasm when written has any meaning. Let me ask you then, are you honestly extending your thanks to me for helping you in your "...attempt[sic] to bring to light the myopia which seems to affect supporters of the current U.S. foreign policy"? Somehow, I think not. Your tonal inflection, combined with the rest of the story and your obvious intent, display what you mean by that. Right/wrong?In case you hadn't noticed, this is a report from someone who was in Fallujah.

Yes, so are the ones on Al-Jazeera. Are they entirely, totally true, balanced and fair, without a hint of subjective personal belief interwoven in the story?Quagmire is the proper term. The U.S. actions are also an excellent recruiting tool for more terrorists.

If we are in Iraq allegedly killing innocent, unarmed patriarch of families, we are giving them a "tool" to use to recruit terrorists. If we support the single nation in the middle east that is demonstrating restraint and the will to negotiate, we are giving them recruitment tools. Any given situation, when looked at through one particular viewpoint, is propaganda for either side. Ever notice how people on both sides of any issue (in America) both site the Bible? If our troops saved 15,000 lives by administering first aid to people that were wounded by Iraqi insurgents, that wouldn't make Al-Jazeera, but ONE innocent Iraqi dies, and it's the cover story.

I was attempting to bring to light the myopia which seems to affect supporters of the current U.S. foreign policy. Thanks for playing along.

Why then does your title reflect how you believe this will spark more terrorism? When we weren't in Iraq killing innocent people, we had embassies bombed, boats blown up, and 9/11! Do you think that these people have run out of myths to blow up to make their people hate us? certaintly it isn't due to freedom of the press, or the main arabic news aggency being funded by the nation that 15/19ths of the terrorists are from.

That sentance is obviously used to show the contrast between what this specific author thinks is happening, and what bush and his associates are telling the American people is happening.

It doesn't quite look that way to me. The whole article seems to be written like a journal, an account of where she's been and what she's seen, at the end she notes what she sees on TV, reports about the ceasefire and Bush saying his actions are right. There is no mention or 'story' of how the coalition are presenting the events, just how Bush feels about them.

I think Bush believes what he is doing is right.

So it is safe to assume that you would agree with a statement like "...George Bush insists his actions in Iraq are right. " ?

S/he is using sarcasm and parody to display her feelings.

How can you be so sure that she is using sarcasm or parody? It could just as easily be a weary observation after a horrifying day. After all, the article up until that point seemed pretty observational, and quite lacking in sarcasm and parody to me.

By displaying one perception of the same reality for the entire story, then commenting on how someone else sees it totally differently, she is showing that what Bush thinks (in her opinion) isn't congruent with what she sees (with her subjective perception). Maybe "Anti-bush" wasn't the right phrase specifically, but she certaintly is showing how her perception is different than his.

I agree, I may see it as observational, and it's obviously there for a reason (the comparison), I don't see a person making that kind of comparison as 'anti-Bush'.

This is why a seperate thread would be, possibly, a bit better of a choice. We've gone off of the "this is why we have terrorists" and back onto the "should we be in Iraq". I realize that they are closely related, but I'm sure that the "should we be in iraq" question is answered in everyones mind already.

It wasn't my intention to drag the thread onto that topic, I think it's safe to say that regardless of what we may read about what's happening in Iraq, Bush seems quite convinced that he is right to be there. Like I said, my point was related to whether the statement was 'anti-Bush' or not.

Do you think that 3,406 words describing the horrific conditions of the war, then a single contrived line that is in stark contradiction to the previous 6 pages of text, is indicitive of an article that is solely for reporting objective fact?

Are we talking about the same article? I'm pretty sure that the article Evolving posted isn't even close to being 3400 words. Are you implying that because of a single-sentence observation about what she saw on TV compared to what she directly experienced, we should just assume that she has some alterior agenda and that her entire report is suspect?

Did you, or any other readers out there, get a feeling that this article isn't PRO-War? Why? she doesn't say that specifically. Writing is like painting, each element is important.

I didn't argue that it was pro or anti-war for that reason, I think it's highly subjective. Is a film like Saving Private Ryan pro-war or anti-war? Arguements can be made for each.

Do you feel that the article would have a different meaning had the last sentance not been there? If so, what meaning do you think it would have had?

I think it would have had the same meaning and impact on me, regardless of whether she mentioned Bush or not, I was already making her comparison in my own head.

--------------------The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

It doesn't quite look that way to me. The whole article seems to be written like a journal, an account of where she's been and what she's seen, at the end she notes what she sees on TV, reports about the ceasefire and Bush saying his actions are right. There is no mention or 'story' of how the coalition are presenting the events, just how Bush feels about them.If she is watching non-AlJazerra news, she is getting told the "bush story". If you honestly beleive that you can read this story and that their isn't a single "jab" there against bush, thats fine. Some people can look at artworkall day and never reach the same conclusion. I know what I got from it tho, and I'm sure not some rabid Bush/Cheney fan.
So it is safe to assume that you would agree with a statement like "...George Bush insists his actions in Iraq are right. " ?

Do you think that the color tones that make up the smile on the Mona Lisa are totally independant, without meaning in relation to the rest of the piece, or that it's there for a purpose? So I don't seem to dodge questions, I think that I'd agree. Word usage like "insists" are what led me to my conclusion of her disliek for the war. IF you don't realize that, or you are just being obstinant, thats your decision. You aren't going to be able to "prove" what she meant, any more than I can. I'd say that if 500 English Professors read that, however, they'd probably see it as a jab at bush.

How can you be so sure that she is using sarcasm or parody? It could just as easily be a weary observation after a horrifying day. After all, the article up until that point seemed pretty observational, and quite lacking in sarcasm and parody to me.Yes, that is why the last line is as it is. The contrast is what gives the perception that she is against Bush, or, at least, the war.

I agree, I may see it as observational, and it's obviously there for a reason (the comparison), I don't see a person making that kind of comparison as 'anti-Bush'. How about this, we each put 500$ imaginary into a pot, and if the majority of the readers of this article agrees with me, I get it, and if the majority agrees with you, you get it. Arguing about her intent is useless, as it's entirely subjective. I'll just ask one more time, do you think that the last line was meant as a jab, or do you think that her talking about war, bloodied bodies, and dead people REALLY TRUELY SINCERLY backs up her feelings about the lack of conflict alluded to in the "cease fire"?

Are we talking about the same article? I'm pretty sure that the article Evolving posted isn't even close to being 3400 words. Are you implying that because of a single-sentence observation about what she saw on TV compared to what she directly experienced, we should just assume that she has some alterior agenda and that her entire report is suspect?

If you think that I'm oen to pull numbers out of my ass, paste the entire text (minus the header and the last paragraph) into microsoft word (Start-> run -> winword.exe) and go to "Options", and "word count". I'm not saying it's entirely suspect, but I think that we can quite easily say that her talking for 3406 words about the war-time scene she is seeing, and then bringing up the "cease fire" certaintly aren't congruent. Or, let me ask you this, then, in her subjective reporting of what she is seeing, why even include the line about bush, other than to show the contrast between what she is perceiving, and what she percieves bush to be perceiving?

I think it would have had the same meaning and impact on me, regardless of whether she mentioned Bush or not, I was already making her comparison in my own head. Ah, so you were making a comparison as to what she was showing not being quite what Bush and his associates were telling people? Perfect, problem solved, thats what I said, hm, three posts ago? And you'll note that the thread is now off-topic. The point was how will this, or won't this, affect the number of terrorists that are coming after us.

edit -

When you read the topic of this thread, that being " Nope, this won't help make more terrorists - Part II", did you open it intending to, or anticipating finding an aricle that shows that it is hard to "make more terrorists"? If not, why not? I was operating on a 6.5 page paper to make my claim, you are operating on 8-9 words (depending on how you count) and you've already determined it was sarcasm.

I simply can no longer express how sick I am of people playing these goddamn little semantics games about "objective" and "partisan" and fucking whatever.

This is an article from, and I cannnot stress this strongly enough, someone who is fucking there, RIGHT NOW, watching and helping care for people who are being shot and killed by the dozens. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while everyone appreciates objective commentary, this is neither commentary, nor meant to be subjective.

It would be quite impossible to be in the thick of this quagmire, surrounded by the terror (and THIS is the definition of terror - not the bullshit pseudo-rhetorical use of "terror" that our president is so prone to doing) (side note: The previous parenthetical statement was actual commentary, and was definitely not objective. See the difference?) that these people are experiencing on a minute by minute basis and present an objective report of the situation. By definition, it would be quite impossible.

These semantic games are beneath us. We have evolved.

What is going on over there is bad, and it's going to get a lot worse. Standard of proof my ass. This is simply somone conveying their experiences in what seems to me to be a fairly non-judgemental way, all things considered. The simple fact that the article was written openly leads me to believe that it's honest and forthright.

You wan't to see what it looks like when people lie to further their agenda? Watch W's press conference from last Tuesday night again. See the difference? I knew you would. (again, previous statement was not objective. Starting to get the picture?)

Gern

--------------------There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
-- Howard Zinn

FUCK your "standard of proof". You should stop here while I contact the University, make sure they can include this in their academic publications, it's brilliant so far. Sorry I don't believe stuff that I"m shoveled, even if it does have a neat link accompanying it.I simply can no longer express how sick I am of people playing these goddamn little semantics games about "objective" and "partisan" and fucking whatever.

Yeah, me to. How about we just sit here and insult each other with profanity and explicatives like adults instead.This is an article from, and I cannnot stress this strongly enough, someone who is fucking there, RIGHT NOW, watching and helping care for people who are being shot and killed by the dozens.you actually didn't "stress" anything, other than the fact that she is there, which was pretty evident. If you believe anything you hear from that location, you should watch Al-Jazera. You'd CERTAINTLY be getting a different story, tho it's from the same location. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while everyone appreciates objective commentary, this is neither commentary, nor meant to be subjective.

Huh?It would be quite impossible to be in the thick of this quagmire, surrounded by the terror (and THIS is the definition of terror - not the bullshit pseudo-rhetorical use of "terror" that our president is so prone to doing) (side note: The previous parenthetical statement was actual commentary, and was definitely not objective. See the difference?) that these people are experiencing on a minute by minute basis and present an objective report of the situation. By definition, it would be quite impossible.

Huh?These semantic games are beneath us. We have evolved.

To using such words as "fuck" and "goddamned"? Wouldn't that be, uh d-evolution?What is going on over there is bad, and it's going to get a lot worse. Standard of proof my ass. This is simply somone conveying their experiences in what seems to me to be a fairly non-judgemental way, all things considered. The simple fact that the article was written openly leads me to believe that it's honest and forthright.

Huh?You wan't to see what it looks like when people lie to further their agenda? Watch W's press conference from last Tuesday night again. See the difference? I knew you would. (again, previous statement was not objective. Starting to get the picture?)

If only the world we lived in was as black and white as the one that you live in. Edit your post so it makes some sense, and I'll respond.Gern

I didn't realise I hadn't replied to all of a previous post (you might want to sort your tags too):

I would imagine that seeing your unarmed father gunned down in the street for no reason, and then having to watch him die (if he didn't die instantly) and being unable to help (for fear of being shot too) or treat his body in accordance with your religious practices, might just make some people violently angry at the people who did it.

Apparently these people can watch their own countrymen get gassed and not stand up to those that did it.

Surely you're not making generalising comments about "these people" based on totally seperate events over a decade ago are you?

I'd like to see some real evidence of that "attack", rather than this reporters obviously bias interpretation of it.

Do you think maybe it was too biased to report the screams of the man's sons as she finally recovered the body for them? Should she have maybe abandoned her aid work to seek out an impartial coalition press officer and get the real evidence and leave his obviously biased kids to their fate?

Does this reporter speak, uh, geez, Farsi (or is that in Iran?)? how does she know exactly what is going on?

Have you considered that some Iraqis are actually educated and can also speak English? Perhaps she has a translator, or even an Iraqi friend helping her.

Now, I don't know this to be the case at all, but let me just fantasize and show you what I mean. Lets say that a very pro-War, pro-Bush reporter was there. He'd see the lack of a weapon as an indication that someone else took the weapon already. Is this version true? we have no way of knowing.

I can't imagine your pro-war-pro-Bush reporter would last more than 30 seconds in Fallujah. If your pro-war-pro-Bush reporter did say on TV that the unarmed man may have been armed at some point, that would be his opinion of what happened. If you read the article again you may note that the writer did also say that she recovered the body of an armed man, and she even described him as a 'fighter'. Is a biased reporter supposed to do that? Do you think that your pro-war-pro-Bush reporter would speculate on whether that man's gun was planted after his death as he would speculate on the unarmed man? Do you think he'd mention him at all? Did the writer of the article even speculate on events like that, or did she just record things as she saw and heard from those there?

In a nation where the main news network doesn't see anything terribly wrong with an 11 year old boy being used to smuggle explosives to be used in a suicide bombing in a crowded area, it's hard to tel lexactly what is and what isn't the truth.

What country, incident and network are you referring to here?

Are innocent people being killed in Iraq by US servicemen who are constnatly under attack from insurgents who aren't following 'the rules'? Certaintly. Is this indicative of a US Policy that isn't concerened with innocent casualties? certaintly not.

Perhaps you have some ideas on why they don't record civilian casualties then?

Summation - I don't see any PROOF that in this war-ridden, civil-strifed nation the man in your example was shot and killed, as he was unarmed, by US servicemen. This sort of reporting that portrays the 'facts' in a certain light leads to conjecture, which isn't what reporting should do. If they autopsy the man, find out it was US Servicemen that did it, and have photographs of the man standing unarmed as he was shot, I'd say it's a horrific thing. If it's some dead man and his family (via a translator who is of unknown'allegiance') being reported by a person who is against the war, well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't meet my standard of proof.

All I can say is that you have a pretty high standard of proof. Perhaps he could turn to face the camera as he's being shot too, or perhaps reach for his wallet so that someone could then argue that he was going for a gun. I wonder, did she even make a factual assertion that the man had been killed by US soldiers? It looks to me like she was telling it as she saw it:?He was unarmed,? they scream. ?He just went out the gate and they shot him.?

--------------------The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.

Hah, sorry about that, I'm bad at it. I notice that the quote tag works, I'll be experimenting to find out what else does, forgive my n00bism

Quote:

Do you think maybe it was too biased to report the screams of the man's sons as she finally recovered the body for them? Should she have maybe abandoned her aid work to seek out an impartial coalition press officer and get the real evidence and leave his obviously biased kids to their fate?

No, perhaps (And I'm just suggesting a possibility, not really saying that this is what I believe), just PERHAPS, the man who was shot dead was shooting at one of hte numerous looters in the region, and was killed by them, and they took his weapon. Unless this reporter SAW it happen, she is just going off of hearsay. IF you want to know what the law thinks of hearsay, check your local law library. I don't "think shes lying", It's just that it doesn't ipso facto rule out any othe rpossibility.

Quote:

Have you considered that some Iraqis are actually educated and can also speak English? Perhaps she has a translator, or even an Iraqi friend helping her.

I see. "perhaps" her translator is a ba'athis who is trying to make america look bad. Again, I'm not saying that is how it is, but it's just a s "probably" as yours was.

Quote:

I can't imagine your pro-war-pro-Bush reporter would last more than 30 seconds in Fallujah.

Hah, a pro-bush reporter making his way onto the news? lol, in America? Thats a good one.

Quote:

If your pro-war-pro-Bush reporter did say on TV that the unarmed man may have been armed at some point, that would be his opinion of what happened.

Just as it is her opinion. See where I'm going with all this, could be couldn't be stuff? IT could be either way.

Quote:

If you read the article again you may note that the writer did also say that she recovered the body of an armed man, and she even described him as a 'fighter'. Is a biased reporter supposed to do that?

I don't read minds.

Quote:

Do you think that your pro-war-pro-Bush reporter would speculate on whether that man's gun was planted after his death as he would speculate on the unarmed man? Do you think he'd mention him at all? Did the writer of the article even speculate on events like that, or did she just record things as she saw and heard from those there?

I certaintly think that the story would be different if a pro-war-pro-bush reporter was tehre. Do you think it's different with a person who is seemingly anti-war?

Quote:

What country, incident and network are you referring to here?

The entire middle east, it's recent, busy now and can't find the URL, I assure you I'll come back to it.

Quote:

Perhaps you have some ideas on why they don't record civilian casualties then? Sure, I know why. It's not their job.

If she is watching non-AlJazerra news, she is getting told the "bush story".

On what are you basing this, an assumption? Where is the 'Bush story' mentioned in the article?

So it is safe to assume that you would agree with a statement like "...George Bush insists his actions in Iraq are right. " ?

So I don't seem to dodge questions, I think that I'd agree.

OK.

Word usage like "insists" are what led me to my conclusion of her disliek for the war.

You'd agree with a statement like that, but you think that it makes somone anti-war, would that not make you anti-war?

IF you don't realize that, or you are just being obstinant, thats your decision.

Or as I said, maybe she was making a factual observation of what she saw on television. An observation that you yourself have said you agree with.

You aren't going to be able to "prove" what she meant, any more than I can. I'd say that if 500 English Professors read that, however, they'd probably see it as a jab at bush.

I'm not trying to 'prove' what she meant, I'm saying that it can be looked at in other ways, and I don't need to pull hypothetical academic 'reactions' out of my ass to add some phoney validity to my point.

How can you be so sure that she is using sarcasm or parody? It could just as easily be a weary observation after a horrifying day. After all, the article up until that point seemed pretty observational, and quite lacking in sarcasm and parody to me.

Yes, that is why the last line is as it is. The contrast is what gives the perception that she is against Bush, or, at least, the war.

So it's not what she says at the end (and you agree with that remember?), it's the fact that she made a contrasting point? Did this memo get to all of the journalists because I thought it was pretty standard to add some contrast to an article. I think it's a given that she is against the war, doesn't stop her risking her life to help those suffering though does it? I still haven't heard a good explanation for why she might be 'anti-Bush'.

I agree, I may see it as observational, and it's obviously there for a reason (the comparison), I don't see a person making that kind of comparison as 'anti-Bush'.

How about this, we each put 500$ imaginary into a pot, and if the majority of the readers of this article agrees with me, I get it, and if the majority agrees with you, you get it.

Yes! Then you could add anonymous people on a BBS as well as those 500 English Professors to the list of people who agree with you, maybe you could take them all out for imaginary McDonalds on that $500 you win!

Arguing about her intent is useless, as it's entirely subjective.

And yet right from the start you brought the validity of her article into question based on her alleged intent.

I'll just ask one more time, do you think that the last line was meant as a jab, or do you think that her talking about war, bloodied bodies, and dead people REALLY TRUELY SINCERLY backs up her feelings about the lack of conflict alluded to in the "cease fire"?

She was observing what she saw on TV, which obviously contrasts with what she observed in Fallujah. It could be seen as a jab, you're proof of that, but I've yet to see a credible arguement that it is 'anti-Bush' or that it throws the whole article into doubt.

Are we talking about the same article? I'm pretty sure that the article Evolving posted isn't even close to being 3400 words. Are you implying that because of a single-sentence observation about what she saw on TV compared to what she directly experienced, we should just assume that she has some alterior agenda and that her entire report is suspect?

If you think that I'm oen to pull numbers out of my ass,

Did those 500 professors bail out on you?

paste the entire text (minus the header and the last paragraph) into microsoft word (Start-> run -> winword.exe) and go to "Options", and "word count". I'm not saying it's entirely suspect, but I think that we can quite easily say that her talking for 3406 words about the war-time scene she is seeing, and then bringing up the "cease fire" certaintly aren't congruent.

I've pasted the article from 2 different sites into Openoffice and both times got in the region of 1700 words.

Or, let me ask you this, then, in her subjective reporting of what she is seeing, why even include the line about bush, other than to show the contrast between what she is perceiving, and what she percieves bush to be perceiving?

You've already agreed with what Bush is 'perceiving', surely we can agree on this by now? Bush thinks that the Occupation is the right thing to do, I'm open to anyone correcting me on this one. The occupation involves the events in Fallujah, which I'm sure the President is also aware of. How does pointing out these contrasting opinions make her anti-Bush. I've seen countless articles where reporters have contrasted events based on different sources, are they all suspect and biased too?

I think it would have had the same meaning and impact on me, regardless of whether she mentioned Bush or not, I was already making her comparison in my own head.

Ah, so you were making a comparison as to what she was showing not being quite what Bush and his associates were telling people?

Yes, before I even got to the end of the article. This was one of many articles I've read about Fallujah, I was well aware of this contrast already.

Perfect, problem solved, thats what I said, hm, three posts ago? And you'll note that the thread is now off-topic.

Did someone give you admin powers all of a sudden? I wasn't aware that a thread was immediately off-topic the moment you decide that you have proven your point. We've gone over this god-knows how many times already. The contrast isn't in dispute.

The point was how will this, or won't this, affect the number of terrorists that are coming after us.

It's widely accepted that extreme trauma can, to be blunt, really fuck human beings up. Seeing your loved ones shot, blown up, maimed, taken away in a hood at 3am, beaten or otherwise abused or subjected to violence can be pretty damn disturbing. If this is being inflicted by members of a foreign army occupying your country by force, it might just make some people think about taking up arms aginst those aggressors. It may also persuade people who share your religion in other countries to take up arms too.

When you read the topic of this thread, that being " Nope, this won't help make more terrorists - Part II", did you open it intending to, or anticipating finding an aricle that shows that it is hard to "make more terrorists"? If not, why not?

I clicked on the article because it was new, and because Evolving posted it, and I thought it would be interesting. That's all I anticipated

I was operating on a 6.5 page paper to make my claim, you are operating on 8-9 words (depending on how you count) and you've already determined it was sarcasm.

Are you putting words into my mouth now? Where did I determine that the comment was sarcasm? I gave my opinion from that start that I didn't see it that way, remember? One minute she's anti-Bush, then she isn't, then she's making a jab at Bush, then she's sarcastic, then it's not sarcasm but the contrast. You claim to be going on 6.5 pages (would that be 3400 words?) and yet most of your arguement pretty much revolves around that last sentence and how it somehow throws the entire article and the motives of the author into doubt.

--------------------The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.